STARTING NOW: Oral argument is being held on motions to dismiss a lawsuit brought by GOP candidate Mark Finchem challenging his loss of the Arizona secretary of state race. Follow along for updates.🧵 democracydocket.com/cases/arizona-…

Watch along here: superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/calendar/today/

Select the live stream under Mark Finchem, Katie Hobbs or Adrian Fontes.

Sec. Katie Hobbs’ attorney argues that Finchem's claims rest on a "conspiracy theory" about the certification of tabulator machines. The attorney says that even if the theory was true, the issue should've been brought up in court *before* the election, not after.

The attorney for Hobbs says that the court should dismiss "this political sideshow immediately" and "send a strong message to plaintiff, and future litigants like him, that the judiciary is not the appropriate venue to air political grievances and conspiracy theories."

Sec.-elect Adrian Fontes' attorney says that "the key thing here is this case is about trying to undo millions of votes...[Finchem wants] to stop the will of the people from being effectuated and...there's absolutely no legal or factual basis asserted by which to do so."

Fontes' attorney argues that Finchem's claims about procedural irregularities do not show how the results of the election could be affected and do not amount to a true election contest under Arizona law.

Fontes' attorney: "This is just one of a series of meritless lawsuits that continue to perpetuate divisive, and frankly harmful, rhetoric and we just need to stop."

Mark Finchem's attorney begins and argues that there cannot be a motion to dismiss an election contest. The judge responds with an example from a 2013 lawsuit where an appellate court upheld a motion to dismiss in an election contest.

Finchem's attorney says that he's spent so much time responding to the motions to dismiss that he hasn't had time to prepare for his arguments in the case.

☹️

Finchem's atty: "We're not trying to overturn millions of voters, judge. We're not asking for the entire election to be redone...We're asking for a revote on the specific contest."

Finchem's attorney compares their request to the Georgia U.S. Senate runoff in that Georgia didn't have a redo of every race, just one.

The difference between Arizona and Georgia, of course, is that Georgia law requires a runoff and a "revote" isn't a real thing.

The judge asks Finchem's atty to respond to the laches argument — the legal principle that plaintiffs have to make their claim within a reasonable time frame. Finchem's atty says laches is a "trap" and that if he filed before the election, it would've been dismissed.

Finchem's atty points to a lawsuit Kari Lake &amp; Finchem filed that sought to get voting machines banned in Arizona that was dismissed as why he didn't file this challenge earlier. The attorneys are currently being sanctioned for bringing that case. democracydocket.com/cases/arizona-…

Finchem’s lawyer says the machines are not accredited. He says that his expert would say that the signed accreditation document "is a forgery made to fool the public." Judge counters that the federal Election Assistance Commission has confirmed the accreditation of the machines.

Finchem's attorney moves on and begins arguing that Hobbs inappropriately asked Twitter to take down posts that Hobbs' office said contained election misinformation.

The judge responds that Twitter is a private company and AZ law requires election contests to prove misconduct in election canvassing. She asks Finchem's attorney to explain how a private actor taking down misinformation is misconduct in election canvassing.

Finchem’s attorney responds: "These platforms are directed by a governmental official and that makes it government. Thus, the government of Arizona restricted the speech that affected this election."

Finchem’s attorney talks about counties that refused to certify election results: "If the county boards have a legitimate belief, whether it's correct or not, it's a legitimate belief that their constituents could somehow have been injured" and they should not certify.

The judge points to a part in Finchem’s brief that states that they are not alleging any fraud, only that there were "irregularities" that affected the outcome of the election.

Finchem's attorney says: "We're entitled to have a hearing on charges of fraud or deception. And we believe that there's deception in the practice of state of not dealing fairly."

Finchem's attorney says, not revealing his source, that almost half of Arizonans believe that there's something wrong with the election. He says he took this case because "someone has to do it" and if he gets disbarred, it's okay because he wants to retire anyway.

Hobbs' attorney again urges the court to dismiss the case. Fontes' attorney says Finchem's arguments are full of contradictions and "what you've heard in the last half hour or so illustrates the complete nonsense that is this case."

The judge says she will issue her written order on the motions to dismiss by 5 pm MT and a status conference will be scheduled for Monday if needed.

The oral argument is over. We'll let you know when any updates are available!

STARTING SOON: Lawsuits challenging a new Tennessee law that would force Nashville to cut its metro council in half are in court today. The plaintiffs are asking the court to block enforcement of the law as litigation continues.

Follow along for updates.🧵democracydocket.com/cases/state/te…

📺Watch the hearing here.⤵️ youtube.com/watch?v=QecIZ2…

Get a breakdown of the law, what the lawsuits are arguing and what this challenge means for our democracy.
democracydocket.com/analysis/an-un…

Here's who will be arguing today:
—Metro Council and community leaders are arguing that the law should be blocked.
—The state (Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee (R), Secretary of State Tre Hargett (R) and Coordinator of Elections Mark Goins (R)) are defending the law.

The hearing has begun. Metro Council begins its opening statement: “We implore this court to enjoin this radical infringement on local sovereignty.”

Metro Council argues that although the law doesn't explicitly target Nashville, it only affects Nashville: “We all know why we're here. We all know that *a* council must shrink as a result of this act. *One* council. The Metro Nashville Council.”

Metro Council: "The act is a lose-lose for the city: either expend resources to draw a council map with half the current districts, which may be later overturned, or your council members have to serve an unconstitutional fifth year."

Metro Nashville explains the Home Rule Amendment of the Tennessee Constitution and argues that the amendment was incorporated to address “the state's legislative abusive interference in local affairs.”

Metro Council: "It is undisputed that Section 1(b) of this act affects only Metro Nashville...This provision will not, does not and will never apply to any other local government."

Metro Council: "There is no stated, or even discernible good faith reason, why the General Assembly would impose these drastic measures on a local Legislature that has existed for 60 years if the primary intent of the bill was merely to set a cap."

Metro Council: “Because Metro Nashville is likely to succeed on all three of the claims that I have described, we would ask the court to enjoin this act in full.”

Metro Council: "We are here today because the Metro Council Reduction Act is an assault on the very core of the Metropolitan Government itself."

Metro Council: "When we talk about Home Rule, we're talking about the people here in Nashville, people who made the decision about where they want to live. Some of us, like me, were born here." 1/3

Metro Council: "Many others moved here from another place because they wanted to make their communities and build a life here. This is where we live. This is where we work. This is where we raise our families and make friendships." 2/3

Metro Council: "We should be the ones to decide how big this council is and how those seats are allocated. That's what Home Rule means. The impossible timetable in this act is already causing irreparable harm and damage to the public interest." 3/3

Metro Council argues that the quick timeline to implement this law will cause chaos in Nashville's elections: “As federal courts have said in Voting Rights Act cases, a quick plan is not necessarily a good plan. And that's true here.”

Metro Council cites the Purcell Principle, which is the idea that election laws should not be changed too close to an election in order to avoid confusion for voters and election officials.
democracydocket.com/analysis/the-p…

The community leaders begin opening arguments. They include religious leaders, community activists, business leaders, Metro Council members and more. All are Davidson County voters or council members.

Community leaders cite Baker v. Carr, a U.S. Supreme Court case that established one person, one vote: “When you're being treated in a constitutionally unjustifiable way vis-à-vis the other voters then you have standing to bring the claim.” 
supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/…

Community leaders discuss the timeline for Nashville elections under the law: "A special election after August of this year means that these voters did not get to exercise their right to vote for a new Metro Council at the end of the constitutionally prescribed four-year term."

Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee (R), Secretary of State Tre Hargett (R) and Coordinator of Elections Mark Goins (R), which we will refer to as the state, begin opening arguments.

The state argues that: "It's important to point out that there are three metropolitan governments in the state of Tennessee."

However, the other two have 20 members or fewer and are not affected by this law. Only Metro Nashville is impacted by #HB48.

The state argues that the law can be applied to all municipalities, even though it is undisputed that Nashville is the only municipality impacted by the law.

The state concedes: “I think we all acknowledge 1(b) has specific applicability to Metro Nashville because they are the only current municipal government that is not in compliance with the statute.”

The state argues that the law is severable, meaning that even if the court blocks one part of the law for violating the Tennessee Constitution, the remaining provisions of the law can still remain in effect.

The state argues that it “has an interest in making sure that its laws are enforced and are not enjoined from being enforced.”

The state argues that this lawsuit is "not a voting rights case."

But as the Metro Council and community leaders argue, the law “wages an unprecedented disenfranchisement of the voters of Metro Nashville.”
democracydocket.com/analysis/an-un…

The state is discussing procedural issues and argues that Metro Council and community leaders do not have standing to bring this lawsuit because “no injury to voters’ right to vote has occurred.”

Metro Council begins its rebuttal: "This is sheer chaos. And the fact that no one knows what districts are going to move toward the Aug. 3 election is precisely the problem. It's just too late."

Metro Council: "Everybody knows that these redistricting requirements only apply to Metro Nashville."

Metro Council: "It is very important for the court to understand what the state is asking you to do. The state is asking you to hold that the Legislature of the state of Tennessee can pass laws that concededly violate the constitution."

This recent recording says what we’ve known for a long time: Republicans don’t like it when young people vote. We’ve seen young voters make a huge difference in recent elections, and in response, the GOP has sought to stifle them.🧵

Last month in Idaho, Republicans removed student ID cards from the list of acceptable ID to vote over baseless claims of voter fraud. Two lawsuits have been filed to challenge this law. democracydocket.com/news-alerts/to…

In Texas, in addition to existing laws enforcing strict photo ID rules and a lack of online voter registration, a Republican lawmaker introduced a bill in February to ban polling places on college campuses.
democracydocket.com/news-alerts/te…

A month later, the same Texas lawmaker introduced a bill to ban polling places in K-12 public schools as well.
democracydocket.com/news-alerts/te…

In the 2022 midterms, officials in Brazos County, Texas refused to open an early voting site at Texas A&amp;M, the largest campus in the state, despite having done so in years past. democracydocket.com/news-alerts/te…

During the 2022 elections, officials in Dutchess County, New York refused to open a polling place on Vassar College’s campus until a court stepped in and ordered them to do so. democracydocket.com/news-alerts/ne…

In June 2022, Missouri enacted a voter suppression law that removed student IDs as a permitted form of ID to vote. democracydocket.com/analysis/misso…

In 2021, Montana Republicans passed a law banning voter registration and education activities in buildings on public college campuses. Voters sued, and the law was permanently blocked. democracydocket.com/news-alerts/mo…

Rather than try to modify their policies to win young voters' trust and support, the GOP would erect barriers so these younger generations can't vote.
democracydocket.com/analysis/how-r…

Despite the barriers Republicans have enacted to prevent them from voting, young people turned out in droves during the November 2022 elections.

But we must continue to fight for easy and accessible voting for all.
democracydocket.com/analysis/young…

BREAKING: U.S. Supreme Court dismisses a case alleging that Mississippi's congressional map is racially gerrymandered. In doing so, SCOTUS affirms a lower court decision that Mississippi is no longer required to preclear maps in congressional redistricting.democracydocket.com/cases/mississi…

After the 2000 census, Mississippi was placed under a court order to use court-drawn congressional maps until the state drew a "constitutional congressional redistricting plan that is precleared in accordance with the procedures in Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965."

The order was modified in 2011 after the 2010 census and remained in effect at the time of the 2020 census and reapportionment. However, in 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court rendered Section 5 of the VRA ineffective in its Shelby County v. Holder decision.

Mississippi argued that it should not be bound to use a court-drawn map or preclear its congressional map following the 2020 census, as the previous order mandated, since Section 5 of the VRA is currently not in effect.

Mississippi voters argued that the new congressional map Mississippi drew with 2020 census data is racially gerrymandered and the state should still be required to preclear its maps. However, a three-judge federal panel agreed with state officials and vacated the prior order.

SCOTUS' decision today affirms that Mississippi is no longer required to preclear its congressional map, despite continued allegations of discrimination.

The Shelby County decision continues to have effects today and should remind Congress that it needs to #RestoreTheVRA.

HAPPENING NOW: The 5th Circuit is hearing oral argument in a case challenging Texas’ “wet signature” requirement to register to vote.

Stream the proceeding here: 5thcircuit.streamguys1.com/houston

Follow along for live updates.

Texas law requires individuals who submit their voter registration applications electronically or through fax to also provide a copy of their application with a "wet signature" — meaning signed with pen on paper.

.@votedotorg filed a lawsuit arguing that Texas' "wet signature" requirement violates federal law, including the Materiality Provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which protects voters from being disenfranchised for trivial reasons.
democracydocket.com/analysis/this-…

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) is arguing that the Materiality Provision is not privately enforceable, meaning that individuals and organizations, like @votedotorg, do not have the ability to sue under this provision and only the U.S. government can sue to enforce the law.

This legal concept is known as a private right of action — and it has become the target of conservative attacks.

Learn more about private right of action here:
democracydocket.com/analysis/who-c…

Learn more about the lawsuits challenging this principle here.👇
democracydocket.com/analysis/the-c…

A lower court blocked Texas' "wet signature" law, but the 5th Circuit allowed the law to remain in effect as the appeal is litigated. 

Learn more about the case and find all of the court filings here.
democracydocket.com/cases/texas-on…

The U.S. Department of Justice asked to participate in oral argument, arguing that "the United States has a strong interest in the resolution of this appeal." Today, the DOJ will defend private enforcement of the Materiality Provision.

Here's who is participating in oral argument:
-Texas state officials: Defending the law and arguing that Vote.org can’t sue under the Materiality Provision
-Vote.org: Challenging the law
-The DOJ: Defending Vote.org’s ability to sue

(All links on Twitter are currently broken. It's not us, it's Twitter. Hopefully, they'll be working soon! We'll still livetweet this oral argument in the meantime.)

Attorney for Texas officials begins. He argues that Vote.org has no standing, saying it's a "leap" to say that a third party can bring claims under the Materiality Provision of the Civil Rights Act.

Attorney for AG Paxton argues that when the lower court blocked the wet signature law, it didn't consider "the wide array of opportunities that there are to register to vote in Texas."

Texas is one of eight states that does not offer online voter registration.

Judge asks why a faxed copy of a signature isn't accepted if it's preserving the "original signature." Attorney for AG Paxton responds he doesn't "think that that is actually signing the registration form. That's attaching a picture of your signature to a registration form."

Judge asks how faxing is different from when a person uses a stylus to electronically sign forms at an agency and that is accepted for voter registration. Attorney for AG Paxton says "that's providing a [manual] signature and then having it captured with the digital format."

An attorney for other Texas officials defending the law begins. She argues that a wet signature *IS* a material requirement for determining voter registration in the state of Texas.

Judge: "Young people sign almost everything on the internet. They don't have printers. Especially in big states like...Texas, where people just can't drive to Kinkos easily...this is a very big impediment for a lot of people that might want to sign up and be a voter."

Attorney for Vote.org begins, countering the Texas officials' attorney's point that Texas can make anything a material qualification under state law.

Judge: The other side is saying that "Texas can put whatever they want in there, and that makes it material."

Vote.org Atty: "Texas absolutely cannot do that. Congress anticipated this type of circular reasoning and in fact…imposed certain provisions within the Civil Rights Act to make sure that such reasoning” doesn’t restrict the right to vote.

Atty for Vote.org: "Denying someone the ability to register is just the same as denying them a ballot under the Civil Rights Act &amp; under Section 101 of the Civil Rights Act...you cannot reject the registration application simply because of an immaterial omission."

Judge asks about standing. Vote.org's attorney says they have testimony from county registrars that they reject voter registration applications from Vote.org because of the lack of a wet signature.

Judge asks Vote.org's attorney how the digital capture of a signature using a stylus, like at state agencies, differs from an original signature. Vote.org's attorney says "it is not different at all. It is exactly the same thing."

Vote.org atty: "We don't even have to guess whether there's a law that restricts Vote.org. The secretary of state admitted that he dropped the language of this provision [in HB 3107] specifically to target Vote.org’s applications."

An attorney representing the U.S. Department of Justice begins. The DOJ is here to speak about the Materiality Provision and private right of action.

DOJ: "The reading that the other side has put forward here that essentially anything that states put forward as a procedural requirement is enough to, essentially, leave out the Materiality Provision goes against the definition of 'vote' in the statute."

DOJ: “The summary judgment record clearly showed that the wet signature rule, the requirement of a wet signature in particular, is not material to meeting any of those qualifications [and] it's not being used, certainly not directly.”

The DOJ cites a 3rd Circuit ruling that struck down Pennsylvania's requirement that mail-in ballots be signed and dated as immaterial under the Civil Rights Act. The decision was later vacated by SCOTUS as moot, but the ruling may still hold influence. democracydocket.com/cases/pennsylv…

DOJ: "There clearly is a private right of action to enforce the statute under" the Materiality Provision of the Civil Rights Act.

Attorney for AG Paxton starts rebuttal. He argues that the state had issues with Vote.org in 2018 and Texas enacted this wet signature provision in response.

Attorney for AG Paxton wraps up his argument, again saying that he doesn't believe that Vote.org has standing to sue and that Texas offers "so many avenues" to register to vote.

Judges end oral argument. Subscribe to our free newsletter to stay informed of any updates in this case: democracydocket.com/subscribe

Court Watch: Tomorrow, the North Carolina Supreme Court will rehear Harper v. Hall — the state-level case behind Moore v. Harper — which blocked the state's congressional and legislative maps for partisan gerrymandering. 

Here's what you need to know.🧵 democracydocket.com/analysis/north…

In February 2022, the NC Supreme Court (NCSC) — which had a Democratic majority at the time — struck down the NC Legislature's congressional and legislative maps for partisan gerrymandering, finding that the maps unfairly benefited Republicans and violated the state constitution.

In all the maps, districts were drawn in ways that could only be explained by partisan gerrymandering — like the cracking of Democratic areas and splitting Democratic-leaning counties into multiple congressional districts.

On Feb. 23, 2022, the trial court adopted new state House and Senate remedial maps passed by the General Assembly and an interim congressional map (for use only in the 2022 midterms) drawn by court-appointed special masters. Various parties appealed the new maps to NCSC.

On Feb. 25, 2022, NC GOP lawmakers asked the U.S. Supreme Court to block the interim congressional map by invoking the radical independent state legislature theory. SCOTUS denied emergency action, but agreed to hear the case on its merits, creating Moore v. Harper.

On Dec. 7, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Moore; a decision in the case remains pending. democracydocket.com/news-alerts/li…

On Dec. 16, 2022, NCSC ruled 4-3 to block the remedial state Senate map, uphold the remedial state House map and affirm the trial court’s rejection of the General Assembly’s remedial congressional map. democracydocket.com/news-alerts/no…

In Nov. 2022, partisan elections were held for 2 NCSC seats. The partisan makeup of the court flipped from a 4-3 Democratic majority to a 5-2 Republican majority. The new GOP-majority court began its term in Jan. 2023.

After the new Republican-majority court started, GOP lawmakers asked NCSC to rehear and "overrule" the Dec. 2022 ruling blocking the remedial state Senate map and the Feb. 2022 decision blocking the Legislature's original congressional &amp; legislative maps. democracydocket.com/news-alerts/go…

On a party-line vote, the new Republican majority of the NCSC granted the request to rehear. In her dissent, Justice Anita Earls (D) wrote that "the majority has cloaked its power grab with a thin veil of mischaracterized legal authorities." democracydocket.com/news-alerts/no…

If this case history sounds complicated, it is. What should've been a simple case about whether the North Carolina Constitution protects voters from partisan gerrymandering turned into a behemoth lawsuit simply because lawmakers refused to draw fair maps.

GOP lawmakers want NCSC to say that lawsuits alleging partisan gerrymandering cannot be brought in North Carolina and that lawmakers can draw new legislative and congressional maps for 2024 free from judicial constraint.

Voting advocates argue that NCSC shouldn’t reverse its prior rulings because there is no valid reason to do so. They also argue that while lawmakers are permitted to redraw the congressional &amp; state Senate maps, they cannot redraw the state House map for 2024.

Courts can rehear cases, but it's usually reserved for when there was an egregious mistake made or the wrong laws were applied. In North Carolina, there's been no change in the laws, state constitution or facts of the case since the decisions were made last year.

Oral argument begins in NCSC tomorrow, Tuesday, March 14 at 12:45 pm ET. We'll be live tweeting the proceedings. Watch this space for updates and subscribe to stay up to date on the latest in this case: democracydocket.com/subscribe

💥BIG NEWS: We're launching a new contributor program! You can expect monthly articles from experts, advocates and leaders about the threats our democracy is facing and how we tackle them. Learn more about our inaugural five contributors.⤵️

.@BrooksRakim is an attorney and president of @AFJustice dedicated to creating a fair judiciary that accurately represents America. In his column, he'll explain the court reforms needed to ensure liberty and justice for all.

An independent journalist and attorney, @JessPish has been covering how states and localities nationwide increasingly use law enforcement to police election activities. She'll tell you why that's detrimental to our democracy.

As the executive director of @TXFutureProject and co-founder of @VoteSimpleNow, @delilah_agho works to expand voting access in Texas. In her column, Delilah will explain how what happens in the Lone Star State can impact the whole country.

.@hill_charlotte focuses on how voter suppression and election subversion disempower and take voices away from voters. Her work will cover the structural policy changes required to protect our democracy.

Ohio has become a hotbed for attacks on democracy, fair maps and voting rights. In her column, @KatyAShanahan, an attorney and voting rights activist, will break down what's going on in Ohio and what it means for the United States.

You can expect to hear from our contributors every month! Check out the first piece from @BrooksRakim explaining the inflection point the U.S. Supreme Court is facing and the dueling visions of the Constitution within the court. democracydocket.com/opinion/two-vi…

Subscribe to our free newsletter so you don't miss any of our contributor articles or news about democracy: democracydocket.com/subscribe